(..)

The concept originates from increasingly asymmetrical armed conflicts like Chechnya or Lebanon 2006, which blurred the traditional boundaries between war and peace and saw a changing role of combatants — thereby essentially rendering the binary distinction between these terms meaningless. Importantly, while hybrid warfare is often used as a buzzword, it should be noted that this form of aggression can be deployed as a stand-alone measure deliberately designed to remain below the threshold of armed conflict, as well as a precursor to full-scale conflict.

The concept should therefore be understood holistically and as a key part of an overall conflict. Put simply, it means using a broad spectrum of instruments to achieve a strategic goal — of which using force can be one of. The influential Russian general Valery Gerasimov stated in 2016 that such a strategy “aims to have minimal military influence on the enemy, (..) undermining its military and economical potential by information and psychological pressure, the active support of the internal opposition, partisan and subversive methods”. This emphasises the importance of the concept prior to actual armed conflict, since everything that comes before intends to reduce the ability and will of your society to resist.

Hybrid warfare can thus manifest itself in the form of arson attacks, cyberattacks, acts of sabotage or attempted murders, include drone overflights of restricted military or industrial areas, the obstruction of democratic decision-making processes, massive disinformation campaigns and the use of social media to influence the political narrative or radicalise, recruit or manipulate sections of the population. Notably, it never conforms to a one-size fits all pattern, but adapts to one’s “own strategic culture, historical legacies, geographical realities and economic and military means” (Lasconjarias and Larsen, 2015).